On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:04:53 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
<grawillers@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"MacHamish" <russj41@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:auleq0hikvriqcctg0idk2ed2mk984snc9@4ax.com...
>
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, it's very smart.   We're showing them the way .
>> >
>> >LOL!
>> >I don't think the US is 'showing' them anything along those lines these
>> >days.
>>
>> Well, of course.  You wouldn't.  Nice snip, by the way.
>
>One does try. I don't think it was out of order really though - it
>summarised what you said fairly accurately.
>
>>
>> >What on earth could they possibly learn from you?!
>>
>> From me personally?  Absolutely nothing.
>
>I think the English language is lacking a tense somewhere. The only way to
>say what exactly what I wanted to there would be to use the Scottish 'yooz'
>which I frequently do. Of course I realise that I could restructure the
>whole phrase to convey the meaning but 'yooz' is so much more succinct and
>fun.

Don't fret about it.  I understood that you meant "yooz".  It was just a
little rhetorical device on my part.

>>From the Western way of doing
>> business?  A lot in areas such as finance, management, manufacturing,
>> service and support, marketing and advertising, distribution, etc.  Not to
>> forget the power of the free and sovereign individual pursuing his/her
>> rational self interest (as opposed to being a cog in the wheel of the
>> State).
>
>I absolutely agree - pity your government doesn't seem to understand such
>basics eh?

Yes, it is actually.  Fortunately, the governed get on with it, anyway.

> >Taking over Hong Kong must have been a real eye-opener for the old
>> Maoist members of the politburo.
>>
>> >The Chinese government just two days ago publicly criticised the
>> >irresponsibility of the US economic policies whilst their own economy has
>> >been expanding at about 9% a year for a decade now.
>>
>> Cheeky of them, wasn't it?   But how impressive is that 9% a year when
>> considered in light of the low base from which they started?
>
>True - but it's still impressive IMO. And 9% is a fairly conservative
>estimate too - I think some claim 15% - with compound percentages that's no
>bad by any standard.

I don't really disagree with you.  Even the Chinese government is trying to
slow it down a bit.  They're fast learners, so they are.

>  But it is a
>> start, and a good thing.
>>
>>
>> Yes, what upsets the "international community" is that it is becoming more
>> difficult to exploit the USA's open markets while practicing protectionism
>> at home.
>
>No it isn't and you know it.

I do?  I think you're being internally contradictory again, but let's move
on.

>> >We're
>> >> also opening up an enormous new market for our own products and
>services.
>> >
>> >You wish. You obviously don't understand the Chinese.
>> >Not that I do either, but I know enough to realise that you have in fact
>> >opened up an enormous market for their products whilst they are not
>buying
>> >very much at all from you and are unlikely to do so in the near future.
>>
>> Nonsense.  I can't be arsed to look up the numbers, but US companies (and
>> others) are doing a lot of business in China and will do even more in the
>> future as the Chinese population becomes more affluent.
>
>Well - that's (literally) pure speculation on your part- same as on mine -
>time will tell.
>But the US is effectively bankrupt anyway and I notice that just today China
>has drastically scaled back it's purchase of US bonds. Not a good sign for
>you (yooz).

I don't know.  If there's going to be an adjustment, let's get on with it.

>> It's certainly true
>> that China is selling more to the US than it is buying, but that imbalance
>> will change over time, especially with the USD at these lower levels.
>
>You hope. I was mildy serious about the 'Chinese mind' earlier. They are
>notoriously resistant to buying outside finished goods. 

I thought you said you don't know much about the "Chinese mind".  I'll tell
you this because you're probably right.  If they resort to protectionism, it
won't be an optimum condition for them or anyone else.

>The British had to
>go to *war* with them just to persude them to buy our opium FFS. It was top
>quality Afghani opium too (the same stuff that is again being produced at
>record levels since the US invaded by the way)

It's a funny ole thing about human beings.  They like to make money.

>The dollar again dropped to record lows against the Euro and the Kiwi dollar
>today too - Did you notice?

Of course I noticed.  I also noticed that gold is on the verge of breaking
above resistance and going to new highs.

>Strangely, Kiwi exports to the US went *up* again last month despite the
>record low US dollar/Kiwi dollar rate.
>Kind of blows the received wisdom a bit doesn't it?
>Who knows? We live in strange times.

Not to be too Panglossian, but we live in the best of all possible times.

>> This
>> is assuming that China's markets will be relatively open.
>
>That's a *big* assumption. See above.

See above.

>> Here's a tip.  Invest in commodities.  China is going to need a lot of
>them.
>
>Way ahead of you. One thing that pisses me off is that shipping costs have
>doubled down here in less than a year due to China booking up all the
>containers.
>I had planned making a 'mobile home' out of a shipping container and posting
>it to Fiji. Now the figures don't add up anymore. Ship-hogging, slanty-eyed
>little b*st*rds.

Good try.  Now you see how the global economy works.  If it's not one worry,
it's another.

>> The US can't carry the world economy on its shoulders forever.
>
>LOL - you mean you can't keep borrowing from the rest of the world forever.

I didn't hear anyone complaining on the way up.

MacHamish M$(D??(Br